OM1 Objective adapter

[elaniobro]

Hi everyone, I have seen numerous folks talk about how they use their digital camera with a micrsocope objective attached to it, for some amazing macro photography.

I have also been told by numerous folks to buy such and adapter. I can not, for the life of me, understand nor figure out what "key words" to search for to find such an adapter to use with my Olympus OM-1

Anytime I try searching for OM1 objective adapter or something similar, I am presented with T mounts for trinoc's.

I already have the Fotasy T2-M4/3 adapter with the NDPL-2(2x) which has been a godsend for my Trinoc's on my stereo and compound. I am now read to start playing with a rail, but not sure what adapter to get nor any websites that have them listed.

I greatly appreciate anyone and everyone's insight, as you have all helped me in the past with getting the right T mount adapter for my scope. Will you please help me once more?

[Scarodactyl]

Are you looking to just put an objective directly on your camera? There isn't a single adapter, you need variable spacers or a bellows to go between your camera and the objective. These are modular bits and fairly inexpensive. For aps-c I would use m42 spacers and helicoids, but it may cause issues on full frame if not fully flocked
Note that this is also not going to work great with just any old objective. Most finite objectives need extra optics to complete their corrections so you have to be selective.

[imkap]

I think you might be looking for this one:

https://a.aliexpress.com/_mLuqmSG

As Scarodactyl already said, you need more than this. I think a bellows with a focusing rail is your best bet. Or without a rail if you already have one you can use...
Although you can make pictures just with an adapter, but with fixed magnification and no way to focus, except moving the specimen or the camera...

For example I have a
Sony e mount camera
Sony - pentax K adapter
Pentax bellows
Pentax k - m42 adapter
And a m42 objective (or in your case an m42 or t2 adapter ring for the microscope objective)

Ps. Maybe you know this already but I'll write anyway. T2 and m42 are the same diameter but not the same thread.

[Scarodactyl]

Ps. Maybe you know this already but I'll write anyway. T2 and m42 are the same diameter but not the same thread.

They're the same thread if you twist hard enough

[elaniobro]

Thank you both for your replies.

No, I do not know the diff between T2 and M42. Thank you for the link @imkap, I'll check it out.

I will have to also look into bellows and all the spacing you both mentioned. This would also be for my OM-1 camera system which is a Micro 4/3 lens.

Do you know if anyone sells anything as an entry level setup package?

[Chas]

Do consider a cone-shaped adapter* ...they are very lightweight (~100grams) and ergonomic.
They can be purchased for around 25$ (some cost nearly double that, for some reason).
As far as objective quality goes; most bottom end 4x 5x finite objectives work pretty reasonably.

* This sort of thing:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204569062725 ... media=COPY
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144442444704 ... media=COPY

Do be aware that black anodised aluminium is very reflecting (even though it is black) so if you use less expensive M42 extension tubes (without internal light baffles) or the cone , you will need to line the inside surfaces with something.

I have found that old monocular horseshoe-stand microscopes make nice focussing/stacking setups, see here, for examples:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13031&p=105050#p105050

[elaniobro]

Do consider a cone-shaped adapter* ...they are very lightweight (~100grams) and ergonomic.
They can be purchased for around 25$ (some cost nearly double that, for some reason).
As far as objective quality goes; most bottom end 4x 5x finite objectives work pretty reasonably.

* This sort of thing:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204569062725 ... media=COPY
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144442444704 ... media=COPY

Do be aware that black anodised aluminium is very reflecting (even though it is black) so if you use less expensive M42 extension tubes (without internal light baffles) or the cone , you will need to line the inside surfaces with something.

I have found that old monocular horseshoe-stand microscopes make nice focussing/stacking setups, see here, for examples:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13031&p=105050#p105050

Chas, this was the reply I was looking for. This was what I am/was missing from my search query "Cone"

Do you know of a good "Cone" that fits M4/3 (Olympus OM-1)? Is there a good brand I should look for that has the light baffles you spoke of?

[Chas]

Do you know of a good "Cone" that fits M4/3 (Olympus OM-1)? Is there a good brand I should look for that has the light baffles you spoke of?

I have only one cone adapter (M42:RMS) so I cant really say too much, however looking on the internet they all appear to have the same shiny black-anodised finish inside. I have lined the inside of mine with some 2mm thick black-coloured EVA foam sheet ('lined' is a bit technical sounding ..I cut the foam to roughly the right shape and jammed it inside )*.

Re. the comment about microscope extension tubes ..I notice that lots of the cheap modern basic M42 tubes (rather than the modern camera-mount extension tubes) look to be shiny and baffle-less inside too. However most modern-mount camera extension tubes seem to have either circular or square baffles inside them.

Re. connecting a cone to your OM-1 : If you look at your NDPL2 it might look a bit like a wedding cake ; if you get hold of the bit that has NDPL2(2x) written on it, it should unscrew out of the camera-mount specific adapter that they have threaded on below it (If it is anything like mine).

The threads in my NDPL ( I have a couple of them) are the finer-threaded T2 .... my M42 cone screws into this T2 thread for a turn and a quarter or so without jamming up and works fine.
However if you do get your NDPL apart (and it is T2) and you would rather use/spend a bit more on a T2:RMS adapter cone, I notice that Rafcamera sells one :
https://rafcamera.com/adapter-rms-t2-thread-cone

*...the black EVA craft foam is quite a usefull material; I stick it inside quite a few microscope tubes to stop stray reflections ..probably because I tend to ' direct-project' into the camera's body rather than using an NDPL2 . ..(I quite like the idea of not having anything between the objective and the sensor so maybe I find it easier on my mind ...rather than it being actually better). The EVA foam is also quite a good background material for photographing as it doesnt reflect loads of light back into microscope objectives.

[elaniobro]

Hi All, wanting to follow up on this post. How will I know how much distance, is required for a Microscope Objective to be placed in from of my Olympus OM-1 mirror? I have 26mm extension tubes already and the T mount I mentioned up above.

[MichaelG.]

This would also be for my OM-1 camera system which is a Micro 4/3 lens.

Please excuse me for coming late to this discussion …
I have read trough the previous posts, and this statement leaves me confused.

If, as you confirmed yesterday, your OM-1 has a mirror … then it would surely be the original 35mm film camera
… but if it uses a Micro 4/3 lens, it would be mirrorless

I have probably mis-read something, but could you please confirm ?

Note: it is very relevant to your questions because the ‘Flange-to-image’ distance differs between those cameras.

Many thanks
MichaelG.
.

Old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_OM-1
New: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OM_System_OM-1

… I blame Oympus, of course, for re-using a name !

[imkap]

This would also be for my OM-1 camera system which is a Micro 4/3 lens.

Please excuse me for coming late to this discussion …
I have read trough the previous posts, and this statement leaves me confused.

If, as you confirmed yesterday, your OM-1 has a mirror … then it would surely be the original 35mm film camera
… but if it uses a Micro 4/3 lens, it would be mirrorless

I have probably mis-read something, but could you please confirm ?

Note: it is very relevant to your questions because the ‘Flange-to-image’ distance differs between those cameras.

Many thanks
MichaelG.
.

Old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_OM-1
New: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OM_System_OM-1

… I blame Oympus, of course, for re-using a name !

I think it's a typo, probably meant 'sensor'.

I don't like the name recycling too, especially now that they aren't called Olympus anymore... I just can't get over it.

The old OM cameras were soo nicely designed. Designer Yoshihisa Maitani was a genius, the new cameras are still made with the same philosophy. I read an interview with him once, I found it very interesting...

I use an old OM-2 and it is wonderful.

Sorry I'm a bit off topic...

[elaniobro]

Sorry, complete brain fart. I 10000% meant sensor, not mirror since well, the OM-1 is a mirrorless micro 4/3rds camera!

[MichaelG.]

Many thanks for the clarification, elaniobro

… All’s good
.

… I blame Oympus, of course, for re-using a name !

MichaelG.

[elaniobro]

I finally got my cone adapter from Raf. Am I going to be in need of spacers to get the 10x objective to the correct distance to be in focus? If so, will one of you please help me out? I do not understand how to measure.

[Chas]

Am I going to be in need of spacers to get the 10x objective to the correct distance to be in focus?

Are you having trouble with the 10x objective, in particular ? i.e. Is the 4x objective working OK on the cone ?

Using a microscope objective on a camera is a pretty 'freestyle' thing ...all sorts of tube-lengths should 'sort of' work.

[elaniobro]

Thank you for your reply. I slapped the 10x on and "tried" to get it to focus, I didn't try long, but did not get anything in view.

My question is/was more of, do I need X amount of spacer distance to make it focusable (sweetspot) or do I just need to take more time with focusing it with what I have. I am not sure if/how adding spacers will affect the focusing. Yes I can play with it, but if anyone has any literature or youtube videos that explains it, that would also be most welcomed.

[elaniobro]

Speaking of sighting my subject, e.g. finding the working distance, I came across this article about shining a laser. http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=25307 I am now wanting to know if there is any harm in doing so on a mirrorless camera, such as mine in the photo above: OM-1

[Chas]

In human terms the focus distance from the end of the objective will not be so different to the focus distance when is mounted onto your microscope. (~ 2 cm with a 4x and ~5mm with a 10x)
I am not sure that the lens maths will help you to easily derive the distance difference but there are a nice set of pages here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... on.html#c1

It is not a bad idea to start initialy with the 4x lens on the cone because it makes things a bit easier ... a good amount of room between the target and the objective to get good light onto the subject... a shroud on the end of the objective to help stop stray light hitting the lens front element .. the shroud can also help to keep your fingers away from the front glass surface of the objective

If you have a mirrorless camera, a laser isnt going to get through the camera body (well not unless you have one with a James Bond /Starwars kind of output) .

Just mess about and you will get there !

[elaniobro]

Just mess about and you will get there !

Thanks for the encouragement @Chas. I plan to play around a bit tonight to see what I can "see"! The laser idea is pretty novel, after I posted it, and re-read what I said I had a facepalm moment, my camera being "mirrorlesss" and all.

[Chas]

A simple light that is good for the job:

Ulanzi VL49 feb2024.jpg (49.9 KiB) Viewed 2285 times

Dont get the the VL49 version that has the letters 'RGB' in its name.

Just plonk it on table close to the subject, it lasts a good few evenings on a charge.

(It has a diffusing front surface)

[elaniobro]

I have one of these already. I use it in the field with my Macro lens!

I added a comment to this thread about gooseneck illuminators.

viewtopic.php?f=28&p=142356&sid=8262112 ... eb#p142356

[Chas]

I have one of these already. I use it in the field with my Macro lens!

You probably ought to have two, when you get going. As far as other kinds of lights go; if they are bright sources they might need another item to diffuse the light around the subject (much like flashguns do with macro) something like a half a ping pong ball or the top diffuser off a domestic led light bulb. So you can end up with wires linking to a goosekneck head which is close to the diffuser, which is close to /around the target .... catch bash knock nudge one of them and the setup is 'altered'. I guess I find setting up wired things time consuming too.
One odd thing that might not be expected, if you come from outdoor macro, is that long exposure times ( the order of seconds) work well !

However I do wonder if you might come unstuck at some point (maybe very soon?) trying to use a tripod .. it might depend on the material your flooring is made of. If you look at people's setups at PM.net or Fdupre's on this forum, the camera is on the same surface as the subject. ..a bit like a microscope ...as closely coupled together as they can be.